| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology - Psychotherapy Forum » Being critical of the widespread pharmaceutical solution
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sammybaby |
 Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
1) does not mean that some people are better off medicated. Remember
when hysterectomies were really popular. (this is just one possible
example). Women had these operations when they exhibited 'hysteria',
when they had emotions (or opinions) that were considered abnormal.
Looking back we can see the political and sexual politics issues
involved. But back then I am sure many of the doctors thought they
were treating ABNORMAL CONDITIONS that needed to be treated fairly
drastically. This does not mean that some of those women did not
benefit. For example women with advanced malignant tumors in that
part of their bodies.
Just because some people are critical of the widespread use of
pharmaceuticals does not mean that no one should be one them. Nor
does it mean that you personally should go off them.
2) on an individual level. I often hear users say that it is better
to be on than off. Fine. Make that decision. Truly, you may be
right. But I do wonder if SOME, note I said, SOME, of you are making
assumptions. One being that you simply go off and compare how you
feel. Let me get specific. I had a client who had tried to go off
several times. She was diagnosed as bipolar. I asked about when her
mood swings began, what had her life been like then. She had been
married to a very closed (emotionally that is) man was living in a big
city and was scared there. Her husband could not understand her
emotions which he considered irrational. 10 years later she decided
to go off her medications, on her own, slowly. It did not work. She
told me she would like to go off but it DOES NOT WORK. What she
called her manic episodes were actually the more dangerous ones, she
was a risk to herself and others. I asked her what she had done to
prepare for the time when she went off the drugs.
Nothing.
She was married to another man, also very closed emotionally. There
were a variety of stressful triggeres in her life - who doesn´t have
them, but there were more than the norm. She goes off the drug and
surprise surprise the pattern repeats. I told her that she needed to
prepare for that time. The details of the solution we came up with in
her case are not so important. It could include more therapy
sessions, a support group with members who have also weaned themselves
of drugs, readings about male female relations, COUPLE'S COUNSELING
which can really ground both depressive and manic states where one
person in a couple judges emotions heavily, lists of friends who can
be called day and night, plans with sympathetic psychiatrists who
prescribe milder and milder replacements and dosages and all sorts of
support from alternative medical and spiritual and therapeutic
disciplines.
'Changes in thoughts about the self.
Changes in resources.
Support from community.
Hell, even a full spectrum lamp was the ENTIRE SOLUTION for one woman
who came to me nicely hooked on fairly heavy anti-depressants.
Sure, some people may not be able to create a support system to help
them with such a transition. Others may really have some genetic
problem. This should not be received as a guilt trip by people on
medication. A blanket purist stance is often not helpful.
Currently our society does not support these kinds of approaches. So
often it requires more space, time, resources than some people have.
But in presenting the idea and fighting the horrible assumptions and
practices of the current system can perhaps help move us to a place
where problems are dealt with more holistically.
AS it is now instead of fixing our society to make it feel right for
us, we are more and more finding technologies to fix us to adapt to
things that feel bad.
When I was in school the Soviet System was always criticized because
the citizens were forced to serve the system rather than the
reverse.
John Jones has a more purist position than mine when it comes to
individuals and how they deal with their pain. Nevertheless I am
sympathetic. I think the current drug fad will look very much like
the hysterectomies described above in 30 years or so.
I have strong opinions about this.
One person said that people who don't need the medications are the
ones who are so strongly negative. This is not true. Many of the
strongest critics are those who once needed them.
Another person said there is no point having a rational discussion
with me because I have an agenda. Strong opinions equal an agenda.
Strange.
How irrational |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marcia |
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 11:26 am, "Sammybaby" <roastfreest...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: She was married to another man, also very closed emotionally. There
were a variety of stressful triggeres in her life - who doesn´t have
them, but there were more than the norm. She goes off the drug and
surprise surprise the pattern repeats. I told her that she needed to
prepare for that time. The details of the solution we came up with in
her case are not so important. It could include more therapy
sessions, a support group with members who have also weaned themselves
of drugs, readings about male female relations, COUPLE'S COUNSELING
which can really ground both depressive and manic states where one
person in a couple judges emotions heavily, lists of friends who can
be called day and night, plans with sympathetic psychiatrists who
prescribe milder and milder replacements and dosages and all sorts of
support from alternative medical and spiritual and therapeutic
disciplines.
'Changes in thoughts about the self.
Changes in resources.
Support from community.
Hell, even a full spectrum lamp was the ENTIRE SOLUTION for one woman
who came to me nicely hooked on fairly heavy anti-depressants.
Sure, some people may not be able to create a support system to help
them with such a transition. Others may really have some genetic
problem. This should not be received as a guilt trip by people on
medication. A blanket purist stance is often not helpful.
Currently our society does not support these kinds of approaches. So
often it requires more space, time, resources than some people have.
But in presenting the idea and fighting the horrible assumptions and
practices of the current system can perhaps help move us to a place
where problems are dealt with more holistically.
For the sake of (avoiding) argument, let's say you're right.
Meanwhile, what should become of the people who can *only* afford
medication to treat mental illness? Should they just suffer? Because
it looks to me like we are headed farther and farther away from
offering holistic treatment, and closer and closer to treating all
mental disorders biologically. Not only is this profitable for big
pharma, but it is cheaper for the insurance industry and national
medicare/medicaid/CMHA budget (see my previous argument). What do you
forsee changing that?
Quote: One person said that people who don't need the medications are the
ones who are so strongly negative. This is not true. Many of the
strongest critics are those who once needed them.
If the strongest critics "once needed" medication, that would seem to
imply they are no longer taking it, which supports my assertion. Also,
if these critics believe they once "needed" medication, who are they
to say others don't, as well?
Note there is also a small but somewhat vocal contingent of former
Scientologists who were critics of psychoactive medication until they,
themselves "needed" it.
m |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:47 am
|
|